While Ukraine sends its ragtag army to retake the east from thinly disguised Russian special forces, Hamlet on the Potomac reviews America’s options on dealing with Vladimir Putin’s land grab.

President Obama’s strategy appears to be wishing both Crimea and eastern Ukraine all the best. He simply does not want to do foreign policy, other than pass travel bans on a couple of Russian oligarchs. Easily said, easily done. That’s Barry’s way.

Meanwhile, Putin merrily rolls on as Obama dithers. White House indecisiveness diminishes all of America, especially those people who put their trust in the President. Offering Putin a “way out” is not a policy. It’s embarrassing to even Putin, who rightly believes he has demonstrated ten times the leadership of our commander-in-chief.

The American public would never support US military intervention in Ukraine, which historically has been linked to Russia. It does want a decision from Obama. At the very least, the U.S. should supply Ukraine’s military and sanction Russia’s Gazprom energy giant and its financial sector.

What will it take for the President Obama to lead? PR may be the answer in the form of Ketchum. That Omnicom unit handles Putin and Gazprom. How about rallying around the flag? Ketchum should drop its Russian masters and advise the American president on how to grow a spine.

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo earned his Hamlet on the Hudson title after he dithered on whether to make a run for the presidency in 1988. The eloquent Cuomo electrified the nation during the 1984 National Democratic Convention with his amazing “Tale of Two Cities” speech, a theme currently in vogue with the takeover of US wealth by the 1%ers. Cuomo then hemmed and hawed and ultimately passed on a sure-fire win against George Bush I and Dan Quayle in 1988. The hapless Mike Dukakis went to the Democratic nomination and was hammered in November.

Cuomo’s lightening-like collapse in support following his waffling led to a re-election defeat against a nobody named George Pataki of Peekskill. His son Andrew currently sits in his dad’s sit in Albany, plotting his own run for the presidency to restore luster to the family name.

Does Barry want to suffer the same fate as Mario? Of course, he can’t run again for the president, but his name will be forever linked to indecision. Time is running out for both Obama and Ukraine.

Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (Apr. 17, 2014):Art's suggestion we would be threatening by rescinding some naval reductions flies in the face of reality. The best time we held off the Russians was when JFK did the powerful stand in the Cuban affair. The main difference then was the Russians were far from home. Fact is we have a massively powerful force in being that does not require deploying big numbers of ships through our capacity to launch all sorts of weapons. Reagan found that out when he ordered creation of the 600 ship fleet, many of which are now in mothballs.
Art's big stick suggestion overlooks a lot of geopolitical reality and sounds more lik that CPAC show.

Simonzee1 (Apr. 17, 2014):People ask why the U.S is so intetested in Ukraine. Fracking...GM crops....weapons sales....minerals and other resources. One things for sure they want to frack the place before France and Britain will begin fracking their land. We know this from the contracts signed by Chevron and other companies last year.

I advised Putin after Libya that the West would go after Ukraine. These Western companies and Sunni autocrats have not been able to get oil out of Libya without playing one tribe against another. Right now the West is reduced to taking back hyjacked oil tankers using their special forces. Is that what their plans are for the Ukraine? These Ukrainian soldiers are smart that are handing over their firing pins in their guns to protestors.

If the C.I.A wants to pay terrorists like they have done in Libya in the Ukraine it will be Putin that needs to put a no-fly-zone in place. And we know how paying terrorists ended up in Benghazi.

arthursolomon (Apr. 16, 2014):Kevin, you're absolutely correct about the president that I'm now sorry I voted for. When I was wrestling about who to vote for in 2012, I told my wife, social programs can always come and go, but it's more difficult to change geopolitical happenings. But I voted for him as the lesser of the evils. Obama's first mistake was his red line statement. His most recent mistakes were to cut the U.S. Army and Navy fleet, and say that the U.S. will destroy nuclear weapons years before treaties called for doing so, while Russia does nothing similar and which sends the wrong message to the new Russian czar.

The least Obama can do is to rescind those decisions, which might send a signal to Putin that he can understand. Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick." Lincoln said, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” Obama's motto seems to be, "let's have another cup of coffee, let's have another cup of tea." I certainly don't want the U.S. to take military action in Ukraine, but Obama's actions reminds me of the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain, which encouraged Hitler prior to WW2. The U.S. kept Russia at bay during the old Cold War by having a strong U.S. military. Better spending tax money on a strong military than appearing weak and costing lives during a hot war.

Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (Apr. 16, 2014):I have been among the critics of the President, but the reality is the sanctions he has imposed have in fact caused problems for Russia. ON the other hand, where have our so called allies from NATO or the EU been on all of this. And most of all, what would you propose be done short of military action that no one here would support? The last time, Obama really weighed in by sending $800 million in arms and other support for Libyan rebels, look at what we reaped!

I do not know what the alternatives should be or should have been as Mitt Romney has whined and have heard no powerful recommendations from all the critics on the sidelines. What are yours?